https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790984 Prosecution under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act was not liable to be quashed where the return itself disclosed the tax liability, the admitted tax was not paid within the stipulated or extended time, and no payment was made even after the assessment order crystallised a larger demand. The Court treated the belated quash challenge, raised after the prosecution had substantially progressed and on grounds already urged before the trial court, as insufficient to show absence of the offence's ingredients or abuse of process. It declined to interfere with the prosecution at the quash stage. en-us Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2026 07:57:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790984 Prosecution under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act was not liable to be quashed where the return itself disclosed the tax liability, the admitted tax was not paid within the stipulated or extended time, and no payment was made even after the assessment order crystallised a larger demand. The Court treated the belated quash challenge, raised after the prosecution had substantially progressed and on grounds already urged before the trial court, as insufficient to show absence of the offence's ingredients or abuse of process. It declined to interfere with the prosecution at the quash stage. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790984